How are you guys calling this?
 

How are you applying the NFHS new bunt rule in this sit?

Batter is squaring to bunt before the pitcher starts delivery. F1 pitches about 8 inches off outside corner. Batter leans over the plate extends bat across and several inches to the other side of the plate. As the pitch is on the way the batter realizes the pitch is a poor pitch to bunt at. Then batter begins pulling the bat away from the ball obviously intending to not bunt the ball. As the pitch is passing the plate the bat is being pulled back, but is not completely out of the strike zone. I'd say it's still at least 6 inches out over the plate.

I had to make this call and another very similar one to it tonight. Girls pulling the bat back but not getting it out of the zone as the ball passed the plate.

Mike

What you describe is a ball according to the Fed rulebook.

hrmmm.. Don't see how this isn't a ball in all rule sets. :confused:

NFHS 2-8-2...Attempted Bunt. "Any non-swinging movement of the bat intende to tap the ball into play. Holding the bat in the strike zone is considered a bunt attempt."

Doesn't sound like she was doing that.

"In order to take a pitch, the bat must be withdrawn-pulled backward and away from the ball."

That sounds like what she was doing.

>>>Then batter begins pulling the bat away from the ball obviously intending to not bunt the ball.<<<

Even with the rule change that was supposed to make it easier for us to judge a bunt attempt, rather than judging an attempt to bunt, we now get to judge an attempt to "not" bunt!

They should have left it alone, but that's just my opinion.

I agree. My advice: quit focusing on the bat being in the strike zone and focus on what the batter is doing with the bat, just like always. Only now, add to your previous movement that you would judge to be an "offer" this: if what she is doing is HOLDING the bat out as if to bunt, it is a bunt attempt. Everything else is the same. If she is withdrawing the bat, it is not a bunt attempt, regardless of where the bat is in the zone. It may still be a strike (depending on the pitch), but it is no longer a bunt attempt.

This pitch would be a ball.

With the new rule change that she has to pull it out of the strike zone (Which by what you describe, she was in fact doing), then call the pitch as you see it. :)

I think this may be where some confusion is. I have been waiting (and it will happen) for a coach to argue that the bat was still in the strike zone.

Note that "the HOLDING of the bat in the strike zone" constitutes a strike, but while WITHDRAWING the bat there is no mention of it being either in or out of the zone, only that it is being withdrawn and not held stationary.

If we were to call the withdrawing a strike if the bat was still in the zone, wouldn't that drastically change the way we look at a check swing?

OK, but what about bat waggling? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/te...smiley-041.gif

They've got a name for you, Mr. Chaney.

well,,,,,,

In Dixie baseball "waggling" gets a warning first, then eject the coach and player as I recall!

I hope the FED rules committee don't read that rulebook!
:D

Do any codes other than Dixie prohibit waggling?

Please humor me and explain why ?

:confused:

They consider it USC and want to avoid a "plunkin" from the pitcher. A batter squaring to bunt then hitting away gets the same.


If you mean explain the last sentence, well they may like it!

I know that we kicked around the new FED bunt rule earlier this year. One of the points discussed was the part about the bat being held "in the strike zone" equalling an attempt.

Has anyone heard anything more about how absolute or literal the holding of the bat "in the strike zone" requirement of the new rule really is?

For instance, what would you have on these plays:

- Batter sets up all the way in the front of the box. She squares to bunt, holding the bat straight out about waist high.

However, due to her positioning in the batter's box, the bat is in front of the plate. By a strict reading of the new rule, the bat is NOT being held "in the strike zone".

Batter holds bat stationary as the pitch comes in about nose high- out of the strike zone. No movement of the bat is made toward the ball.

Offer? No offer? Strike? Ball?

- Batter squares to bunt, holding bat over plate but about chin high (out of the strike zone).

Without any movement of the bat, the batter holds this position as the pitch comes in below the knees (or, otherwise out of the strike zone).

Do you ring up a strike?

Personally, I am enforcing it the way I have enforced the NCAA bunt rule all of these years. I believe that the NFHS rule folk meant an attempt to simply be the holding of the bat in a bunt position without pulling the bat back. Look at the spirit of the rule, rather than breaking it down word for word.

That is my first inclination and one that makes perfect sense to me.

However, in previous discussions some had reported being told by FED "higher-ups" that the requirement of the bat being held within the strike zone was, literally, how the rule should be interpreted.

I was just curious if anyone else had been told anything different.

I expect that will be amended once someone up there realizes that most bunters are at the front of the box, and therefore rarely is the bat ever being held in the strike zone since it is never over the plate!